Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Athletic facilities : water sustainability leadership Nesbitt, Roxanne 2014-09-17

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


66428-Nesbitt_Roxanne_SEEDS_2014.pdf [ 3.18MB ]
JSON: 66428-1.0108822.json
JSON-LD: 66428-1.0108822-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 66428-1.0108822-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 66428-1.0108822-rdf.json
Turtle: 66428-1.0108822-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 66428-1.0108822-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 66428-1.0108822-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportRoxanne NesbittAthletic Facilities: Water Sustainability LeadershipVOL 500September 17, 201411181674University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  1Athletic Facilities: Water Sustainability LeadershipRoxanne Nesbitt, MArch CandidateWorking in collaboration with Kavie Toor, Athletics and Recreation, Dan Cooper, Athletics and Recreation, Bud Fraser, Water and Zero Waste Engineer, Liska Richer, SEEDS2PrefaceThis report is one of fifteen research projects completed for the 2014 UBC Sustainability Scholars program. It was preparded in collaboration with UBC Social, Ecological, Economic, Development Studies (SEEDS) and the Athletics and Recreation Department. Daniel Cooper, Facility Manager UBC Athletics, Liska Richer, SEEDS and Bud Fraser, UBC Water and Zero Waste Engineer, acted as mentors throughout the project. I also consulted frequently with Bradley Thomas, Thunderbird Stadium Facility Manager and Erin Kastner, UBC Utilities Geospatial Information Manager. Thank you to everyone who has provided support in the compilation of this report.3ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report EvaluationSustainable Athletics Water Use: Best Practices StudySports Field Irrigation InvestigationContents4ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report EvaluationDuring 2013, a detailed water use profile and report titled Athletics Ability To Conserve: Inves-tigating A University Athletic Facility’s WaterConsumption, was produced for the UBC athlet-ics department by student intern Jennifer Bruce. This report included a water-use break down and suggested retrofits for the Student Recre-ation Centre, Thunderbird Stadium, and the War Memorial Gym.In the Student Recreation Centre and Thunder-bird Stadium several of the retrofit recommen-dations were realized. The following pages exam-ine the cost benefits and water savings of the upgrades that were made and highlight changes that could drastically reduce water consumption in these facilities. Student Recreation CentreThunderbird StadiumWar Memorial Gym Source:               /artificial-turf-project-gallerySource: ABILITY TO CONSERVE: INVESTIGATING A UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC FACILITY’S WATER CONSUMPTIONSummary Of Successful Retrofits And Target AreasFacility Toilets Urinals Sinks Showers Washing MachineThunderbird StadiumWar Memorial GymStudent Recreation Centre18.9 litres/ flushmotion sensor installed in mainMen’s Washroomaerators installed30 showers-11.4 l/m11showers-13.2 l/maerators installedshowers upgraded to 9.5 litres/min from 11.4 litres/min13.2 litres/ flush 3.8 litres/ flush3.8 litres/ flush13.2 litres/ flush 8.3 litres/ min21 showers-11.4 l/m3 showers-13.2 l/mWaterSense Standards for Plumbing Fixtures4.8 litres/ flush 1.9 litres/ flush 5.7 litres/ min 7.6 litres/ minGE Hydro Wave 35lb (235L/load)50lb (278L/load) (170-150 L/load)Figure 1.  Summary of Recent Upgrades and Target Areas6ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report EvaluationStudent Recreation CentreSource: water-conserving retrofits were rec-ommended for the Student Recreation Centre. The suggested upgrades included sink faucet aerators, low flow shower heads, low flow uri-nals and low flow toilets. Faucet aerators were installed in the facility sinks and the shower heads were changed from 11.4 litres per minute to 9.5 litres per minute. The effect of the aerators and low flow shower heads appear to be evident in the water con-sumption reports for the facility. The shower heads were upgraded for the beginning of September 2013. Figure 3 shows the water consumption for the facility in litres from September 2011- May 2014. When comparing the seasonal fluctuations in water demand, 1043985.5 litres were consumed in September 2012, compared to 794995.5 litres used in Sep-tember 2013 following the installation of the low flow shower heads and faucet aerators. This resulted in a savings of approximately 248990 litres of water and a 24% reduction in water use from the previous year. Summary Of Successful Retrofits And Target AreasFacility Toilets Urinals Sinks ShowersStudent Recreation Centre aerators installedshowers upgraded to 9.5 litres/min13.2 litres/ flush 3.8 litres/ flushWaterSense Standards for Plumbing Fixtures4.8 litres/ flush 1.9 litres/ flush 5.7 litres/ min 7.6 litres/ minFigure 2.  Recent Upgrades and Target Areas for the Student Recreation Centre 7ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report EvaluationStudent Rec Centre Water Consumption020000040000060000080000010000001200000140000016000001800000Mar-11May-11Sep-11Dec-11Mar-12May-12Sep-12Dec-12Mar-13May-13Sep-13Dec-13Mar-14May-14Quarterly Meter ReadingWater Consumption in Litresafter shower upgrade to 9.5L/mand sink aerator upgradeFigure 3. Water Consumption Student Recreation Centre 2011-2014 (Compiled using water meter data from UBC Utilities).8For the full 2013 academic term water consumption was reduced by approximately 10%. The retrofit had less of a financial benefit than Bruce estimated, likely because she used a 7.6 Lpm shower in her calculations and a 9.5 Lpm shower head was installed. A 10% reduc-tion in water metered also reduces the quantity of waste water exiting the building. Athletics is billed approx-imately 90% of the cost of incoming water for waste water. Including the reduction in waste water charges, the department has saved approximate $858 since the implementation of the upgrades. It is worth noting that non-peak cost of water has increased by 58% from 2012 to 2014, which will continue to amplify the effect of these upgrades.The implemented water saving upgrades have saved water, electricity, and money for the Student Recreation Centre. Continuing with retrofits could save the facil-ity even more water and money in the long-term. The toilets and urinals have not been upgraded and pres-ent an opportunity for additional water savings.  The facility was constructed in 1995 and will likely continue to serve the student body for another twenty years. The continued high use of the facility make further up-grades to the urinals and toilets financially and environ-mentally logical. According to Athletics Ability to Conserve, toilets have the highest water consumption, using 57% of the facil-ity’s total (25).  The current toilets use approximately 13.2 litres per flush, almost 3 times the WaterSense standard of 4.8 litres per flush. In Athletics Ability to Conserve, Bruce estimated that upgrading the toilets to a low flow alternative could save the athletics depart-ment $3,377 and 3.7 million litres of water annually (33 ). The urinals in the facility use 3.8 litres per flush, twice the volume of the WaterSense high-efficiency alternative, which uses 1.9 litres per flush. Toilets 57%Urinal 17%Showers 11%Sinks 14%Kitchen andJanitor Sink 1%Student Recreation Centre Water UseFigure 4.  Water Use Student Recreation Centre Constructed using data from Bruce, Jennifer. Athletics Ability To Conserve: Investigating A University Athletic Facility’s Water Consumption.9ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report EvaluationWar Memorial GymImage source: ABILITY TO CONSERVE: INVESTIGATING A UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC FACILITY’S WATER CONSUMPTIONSummary Of Successful Retrofits And Target AreasFacility Toilets Urinals Sinks Showers Washing MachineWar Memorial Gym 3.8 litres/ flush13.2 litres/ flush 8.3 litres/ min21 showers-11.4 l/m3 showers-13.2 l/mWaterSense Standards for Plumbing Fixtures4.8 litres/ flush 1.9 litres/ flush 5.7 litres/ min 7.6 litres/ minGE Hydro Wave Figure 5.  Recent Upgrades and Target Areas for the War Memorial Gym Athletics Ability to Conserve contains several recommendations for retrofits to the War Me-morial Gym. These upgrades include low flow toilets, urinals, shower heads and high efficiency sink faucet aerators. The easiest most effective upgrades were identified as installing low flow shower heads and sink faucet aerators. It was estimated that approximately 422,148 litres of water and $1 212 could be saved annually by switching to a shower head with a flow rate of 7.6 Lpm or less (Bruce, 33). Installing faucet aer-ators, produces very little disturbance for users, has low capital costs and features fast installa-tion. It was estimated that faucet aerators could save the department up to 299,251 litres and $262.72 annually (34).None of the water conservation recommenda-tions made by Jennifer Bruce have been realized in War Memorial Gym. When investigating potential upgrades to the facility, it was revealed that the facility manager was not aware of the Athletics Ability to Conserve report and had not read it. The need for a department wide strategy for sustainable water use that engages all levels of staff and students is discussed further in the Best Practices Study on page 30. The upgrades to the toilets and urinals are less practical due to the age of the building and likelihood that it will be replaced in the near future. However, installing sink aerators and low flow shower heads should still be considered. As demonstrated with the Student Recreation Center, these upgrades can significantly reduce the amount of water consumed by the facility. 10ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report EvaluationThunderbird StadiumImage Source:               /artificial-turf-project-galleryThunderbird StadiumFor Thunderbird Stadium the Athletics Ability To Conserve report suggested water saving upgrades to the sinks, showers, urinals and toilets. As a result of the report, a urinal tank controller was in-stalled in the buildings main men’s washroom. The tank controller flushes the urinals when motion is detected by the sensor. Previously the urinals were flushing constantly when the lights in the facility were on for approximately 8 hrs per day regardless of frequency of use. The original report estimated that the tank controllers would conserve 4.2 million litres of water annually saving the department $3,907 per year (Bruce, 30). This estimate was based on the assumption that the con-trollers would be installed in all four urinal locations. Currently, the tank controller has only been installed in one location.Faucet aerators were also installed in several of the facilities washroom sinks. The aerators have re-duced the flow rate of the sinks in the women’s main washroom from 7.6 Lpm to 4.8 Lpm. Aerators were also installed in the Visiting Team Locker Room and the Soccer Locker Room. The flow rates of these sinks have been reduced from 9.5 Lpm to approximately 4.8 Lpm. The Athletics Ability To Conserve report estimated that the Thunderbird stadium could save 262,000 litres of water and $240 annually (Bruce, 31).11Summary Of Successful Retrofits And Target AreasFacility Toilets Urinals Sinks Showers Washing MachineThunderbird Stadium 18.9 litres/ flushaerators installed30 showers-11.4 l/m11showers-13.2 l/mWaterSense Standards for Plumbing Fixtures4.8 litres/ flush 1.9 litres/ flush 5.7 litres/ min 7.6 litres/ minmotion sensor installed in mainMen’s Washroom35lb (235L/load)50lb (278L/load)In Athletics Ability to Conserve, the installation of low flow toilets in the washroom facilities and low flow shower heads in the locker room facilities, were also recommend. These water saving retrofits have not been implemented. According to Athletics Ability to Conserve, the installation of low flow toilets could save 3.4 million litres of water annually resulting in a financial savings of $3,079 per year. The report highlighted higher capital costs a for toilet purchase and installation or approxi-mately $7000 and a payback period that is longer than the other retrofits of 2.27 years (31).The current washroom fixtures utilize 18.9 litres of water per flush, almost 4 times the volume of a low flow high efficiency fixture, which uses 4.8 litres per flush. In discussion with the facility man-ager, it seemed that this option was forgotten rather than being dismissed and should be re-ex-plored.  Since there is no continuous facility position, or campaign pushing sustainable strategies forward, it seems that it may be easy for facility managers who are busy, to prioritize other facility operations over water saving upgrades. The need for a cohesive athletics department sustainability strategy is further discussed on page 30 of the Best Practices Study.Figure 6.  Recent Upgrades and Target Areas for the Thunderbird StadiumATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Report Evaluation12ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Reconsidering ThunderbirdFigure 7.  Water Consumption Thunderbird Stadium 2012-2014 05000001000000150000020000002500000Jan-12Feb-12Mar-12Apr-12May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-12Dec-12Jan-13Feb-13Mar-13Apr-13May-13Jun-13Jul-13Aug-13Sep-13Oct-13Nov-13Dec-13Jan-14Feb-14Mar-14Apr-14May-14Jun-14Men’s and Women’s soccer start playing games in StadiumMen’s and Women’s soccer start training in StadiumThunderbird Stadium Building Water ConsumptionDateafter sink aerator upgrade after urinal control sensors Consumption in LitresThe adjacent bar chart shows the water consumption of the building without the irrigation water use for January 2012 to June 2014. This chart was made from meter readings collect-ed from UBC utilities. These readings indicate that the water consumption of the building has increased significantly from the 2012 athletic season to the present.The rise in water consumption following upgrades that should have reduced it resulted in the need to re-examine water use in the Stadium. Increased building usage can partially explain the rise in wa-ter consumption. The men’s and women’s soccer teams began having games in Thunderbird stadium during the summer of 2012 and started training in the facility during the summer of 2013. The soccer team’s primar-ily use the washroom facilities, ice bath and washing machine. No members of the Women’s Soccer team use the shower facilities. Approximately 33% of the Men’s team shower after games and practice.13Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June JulyWaterConsumerLaundryOff-season trainingCoachesFootball96 Athletes Soccer (M)30 AthletesSoccer (W)24 AthletesStaff3 full-time *112 loads/ week28728 L/ week *assumes both washers are used equally2.5 loads/week 641.25 L/week3 practices/week1 game30% of players shower4.5 practices/week1.5 game/weekno player showers4 practices/week1 game/weekFacility closed for Holidays3 practices/week1 game3 practices/week1 game3 practices/weektraining camp9prac./week4.5 practices/week.5 games/ weekplayers shower up to 2x/ day5 practices/week2 practices/ weekshowers, toilets, icebath approximately 4 days/weekuse shower, washrooms and icebathVisitors use sinks, toilets and urinals use sinks, toilets and urinalsFigure 8. Thunderbird Occupation ScheduleATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Reconsidering Thunderbird14Thunderbird Fixtures and Flow RatesArea Toilets Urinals Men’s WashroomWomen’s WashroomFootball Locker RoomSoccer Locker RoomVisitor Locker RoomReferee Locker RoomSinks Showers Washing Machine Ice Bath3  (18 Lpf)5  (18 Lpf)3  (18 Lpf)2  (18 Lpf)2  (18 Lpf)1  (18 Lpf)4  (3.8 Lpf)3  (3.8 Lpf)3  (3.8 Lpf)3  (3.8 Lpf)18  (11.4 Lpm)11  (13.3 Lpm)11  (11.4 Lpm)1 (11.4 Lpm)8  (4.8 Lpm)8  (2 Lpm)35lb (235L/load)50lb (278L/load)(344L/use)(517L/use)** Based on estimates from “Assesment of  Water Savings for Commercial ClothesWashers.” (2006) produced by Water Management, Inc.Western Policy ResearchKoeller and Company4  (8.3 Lpm)3  (5 Lpm)3  (4.2 Lpm)1  (9.5 Lpm)Figure 9. Thunderbird Fixtures and Flow RatesATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Reconsidering Thunderbird15Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June JulyWaterConsumerLaundryOff-season trainingCoachesFootball96 Athletes Soccer (M)30 AthletesSoccer (W)24 AthletesStaff3 full-time *112 loads/ week28728 L/ week *assumes both washers are used equally2.5 loads/week 641.25 L/week1 game/ week1.5 game/week 1 game/weekFacility closed for Holidays1 game/ weektraining camp9prac./week4.5 practices/week5 practices/week2 practices/ week05000001000000150000020000002500000Thunderbird Stadium Building Water Consumption August 2012- July 2013 Consumption in LitresVisitors use sinks, toilets and urinals use sinks, toilets and urinalsATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Reconsidering ThunderbirdAccording to Facility Manager, Bradley Thomas, the use of the building is increasing as players are now training in the facility during the off-season. The presence of football and soccer athletes during the off-season results in an increased use of laun-dry, showers, toilets and the ice bath. The facility  also began doing laundry for the men’s and wom-en’s soccer teams in 2013.During a survey of the facility, the equipment manager noted that in the past year coaches start-ed using the shower facilities and that some stu-dent athletes shower twice per day during training, which was not common in previous years.Figure 10 shows the building water consumption in litres above the facility schedule for the 2012-2013 athletic season beginning in August 2012. The water meter readings taken by UBC Utilities are typically read in the middle of the month, therefore the consumption of the month will lag behind the activity of the month. For example the recorded water consumption for the month of Au-gust measures from July 20th to August 20th. The metered water consumption reflects the changes in occupancy for the first half of the athletic season. The water consumption in Janu-ary should show half of the volume of December as this time interval should include the two week period when the facility is closed for holidays and has no occupancy.Figure 10. Annual Building Water Consumption with Facility Schedule August 2012- July 201316Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June JulyWaterConsumerLaundryOff-season trainingCoachesFootball96 Athletes Soccer (M)30 AthletesSoccer (W)24 AthletesVisitorsStaff3 full-time *112 loads/ week28728 L/ week *assumes both washers are used equally2.5 loads/week 641.25 L/week3 practices/week1 game4.5 practices/week1.5 game/week4 practices/week1 game/weekFacility closed for Holidays3 practices/week1 game3 practices/week1 game3 practices/weektraining camp9prac./week4.5 practices/week5 practices/week2 practices/ week05000001000000150000020000002500000Thunderbird Stadium Building Water Consumption Aug. 2013-July 2014Consumption in Litresshowers, toilets, icebath approximately 4 days/weekuse sinks, toilets and urinals use sinks, toilets and urinalsATHLE ICS ABILITY TO ONSERVE: Reconsidering ThunderbirdFigure 11. Annual Building Water Consumption with Facility Schedule August 2013- July 2014The water consumption and schedule for the 2013/ 2014 athletic season also reflect the sched-ule. The recorded water use in December and January are similary high considering the holi-day break and small amount of scheduled activ-ities. This may indicate that there is a significant leak in the facility or that the urinals are left on when there are no occupants in the facility.Although time constraints and scheduling did not allow for this investigation, it is highly rec-ommended that the department test Thunder-bird Stadium for leaks over the two week holiday period when there is no occupancy in the build-ing. A leak test can be done by recording the high and low meter reading in the facility before the holiday and again after the facility re-opens before any activity has resumed. The building water consumption is calculated by subtracting the first high reading from the second high read and the first low reading from the second low reading and combining the difference (Kastner). Any change in the meter which records in cubic meters will confirm that there is a leak in the facility, or that a fixture has been left on.17The lack of motion sensors on urinals could also be causing the high water consumption during periods of low occupancy. The urinals have three settings; they can be off, on (full flush every 5 minutes) regardless of occupancy and  linked to the lights in the washroom meaning that the uri-nal flushes every 5 minutes when ever the lights in the washroom are on. Each urinal tank holds approximately 21 litres of water and the switches are accessible to users. If a urinal is left “on” it would waste 6048 litres in a 24 hour period. If all three urinals were left “on” from the time that the soccer and football teams stopped using the facility in mid-November until occupancy began again in mid -January they would waste over a million litres of water accounting for the high water consumption when the facility is unused.If charged at the off-peak water rate, these urinals remaining on over the break in occu-pancy would cost the department approximately $1482.9 in water and $1334.78 in sewer fees, totaling over $2800.00 in completely unnec-essary fees. This could be avoided by ensuring that staff switch the urinals “off ” after the season has finished or installing motion sensors which would also ensure that the urinals are not flush-ing overnight or during the day when the space is unoccupied. ATHLETICS ABILITY TO CONSERVE: Reconsidering ThunderbirdA motion sensor for each urinal station is the recommended option in this case. The current urinal switches can be accessed by students who may simply flick them to ensure that the urinals flush after use, without knowing what settings they are changing them to. It is currently the responsibilty of the coaches to make sure the urinals are switched “off ” after facility use but according to the building manager this is rarely done. The motion sensor would result in the maximum water savings without relying on a behavior change from staff or students.The savings of the upgrades may have also been offset by leaky fixtures in the facility. When I vis-ited the Stadium on August 8th 2014 two toilets in the facility were constantly running. One of these toilets was also running when I first visited the facility on June 23rd 2014. The Environmen-tal Protection Agency estimates that a constant-ly running toilet wastes approximately 72 800 litres of water annually (WaterSense). Using this estimate as a base point we can assume that two leaking toilets waste at least 145 600 litres of water annually. There is also a leaking hose in the facility storage room. Addressing plumbing problems will reduce water consumption for the building. 18The recommended upgrade to low flow shower heads was also not implemented in the Thunder-bird Stadium. According to the Facility Manager, Bradley Thomas, there is some concern over the quality of the low flow shower experience ex-pressed by some student athletes. This concern presents an interesting opportunity to engage students in sustainable water initia-tives. The department could consider installing one low flow shower in each locker room with a poster describing the water savings associated with the shower and ask students for feed back. This could avoid costly installation of a prod-uct that does not deliver on the manufactures guarantees and create an opportunity to educate and engage students on water conservation. Hopefully students leave the building in support of a switch to a water saving shower and curi-ous about the water consumption in their own homes.Try the Low flow showerIf the Thunderbird Stadium switched to these showers we could save over 400,000 litres per yearThat’s enough water to fill 4 backyard swimming poolsLet us know what you Figure 12.  Sample poster to accompany low flow show trial19Sustainable Athletics Water Use: Best Practices StudyReport ContentsFlow Rate SummaryCase Studies: Collegiate Sustainable Water-use Initiatives+ University of Colorado - Boulder Campus+ University of BostonInnovative Financing Ideas for Sustainable InitiativesConclusion: Elements of a Sustainable Athletics Campaign20Sustainable Athletics Water Use: Best Practices StudyThe adjacent chart sum-marizes the maximum bathroom fixture flow rates for four organi-zations relevant to new construction and reno-vations on UBC campus. The Vancouver plumbing code has the highest water usage for fixtures compared to the UBC- endorsed and LEED standard for new con-struction. The organiza-tion WaterSense advo-cates for the highest level of conservation of the considered institutions. The WaterSense standard is set by the US Envi-ronmental Protection Agency and is commonly seen as a benchmark of water conservation. The WaterSense rating label is frequently seen on plumbing fixtures in both the Canadian and American market place.Summary of Fixture Flow RatesOrganization Toilets Urinals Bathroom Faucet ShowersBC Plumbing Code 2012LEED 2012 Standard *UBC Endorsed Standard6 litres/ flush7.6 litres/min6 litres/ flush 1.9 litres/ flush1.5 litres/ flush4.8 litres/ flush 6.6 litres/ minWaterSense Standards for Plumbing Fixtures4.8 litres/ flush 1.9 litres/ flush 5.7 litres/ min 7.6 litres/ min5.6 litres/ min9.5 litres/min8.3 litres/min1.9 litres/ flush*points awared for fixtures 20% more efficient than the baseline. In this case the baseline is considered the BC Plumbing Code7.6 litres/minFigure 13. Summary of Relevant Fixture Flow Rates21Case Studies: Collegiate Sustainable Water-use Initiatives Summary of Sustainable Activities:-All new athletics facilities built to LEED standards -Sports fields irrigated with non-potable water-Fields fertilized with “compost tea”-Soil moisture monitors used to reduce irrigation-“Ralphie’s Green Stampede” Zerowaste campaignUniversity of Colorado Boulder Campus The University of Colorado has a cohesive campus wide sustainable initiative, as well as several notable projects underway in the athlet-ics department. The campus wide water con-servation initiatives include retrofitting existing facilities with high efficiency, low flow fixtures and irrigating landscaping and sports fields with non-potable water.  Figure 14. Student Volunteers for Ralphie’s Green Stampede         Source: http-_cuswimdive.com_images_Slideshow1.pngSeveral American collegiate departments have publicized efforts to create more sustainable ath-letics departments. The initiatives include, water conservation, and zero waste strategies, and LEED standard new construction and retrofits to existing facilities. The following case studies ex-amine the sustainable water use campaigns and strategies employed by the University of Colora-do and the University of Boston. The case studies also explore the elements of a successful sustain-able athletics strategy with a focus on realizing projects through alternative funding sources.Figure 15. Ralphie’s Green Stampede Logo          Source: ralphies-green-stampede-http-_silk.com_our-story_our-partners22IrrigationApproximately 95% of the University of Colora-do irrigation needs are met using non-potable ditch water (Ryan Heiland, UC Facilities Man-agement). The campus switched to the raw water irrigation system from potable irrigation in 1991. In an average year the University of Col-orado uses 80,000,000 gallons of ditch water for irrigation. This system saves the university ap-proximately $440,000 annually compared to the cost of using treated potable water (Blackheart).Compost Tea FertilizerTo fertilize the sports fields, compost tea is fed directly into the irrigation lines. Compost tea is a natural fertilizer made by steeping compost in water to transfer the nutrients of the compost to the irrigation water. According to David New-port, the director of the Campus Environmental Centre, the “fields have never looked better.” University of Colorado –Boulder Campus Figure 16. Anderson Ditch at the University of Colorado              source: http-_alumni.colorado.edu_wp-content_uploads_2011_06Source: Ryan Heiland, 17. Field fertilized with Compost Tea at the University of Colorado23University of Colorado –Boulder Campus Rain SensorsThe athletics department also uses soil monitors to regulate the amount of water distributed to the sports fields. University of Colorado uses Turfguard soil monitors, which track moisture as well as temperature and salinity (Heiland, CU Outdoor Services). Figure 18. Inground Rain Sensor Utilized by the       University of ColoradoFigure 19. Sample Rain Sensor ReadingSource: Turfgaurd 1 http-_www.cuout-doorservices.blogspot.ca_2012_10_turf-gaurd-sensors.html.jpgSource: Soil monitors-http-_www.cuoutdoorservices.blogspot.ca_2012_10_turfgaurd-sensors.html.JPG24Several of the University of Colorado Athletics department’s successful sustainable initiatives have resulted from collaborations with the campus Environmental Centre. Athletics has worked with the Environmental Centre on the sporting event, zero waste campaign “Ralphie’s Green Stampede,” since 2008.  This ambitious on-going campaign attempts to create a zero waste stadium by providing ample recycling and composting stations around the stadium and switching all of the concession packaging to compostable and recyclable food ware. The “Green Stampede” is run by students employed through the Environmental Centre as well as student volunteers. The campaign is financed through sponsorship deals with local and international businesses. The main sponsors include White Wave Foods and BASF the chemical company. Although “Ralphie’s Green Stampede” does not have a water conservation agenda, the project successfully engages students, reduces and diverts landfill waste, and fosters collaboration between the athletics department and the Environmental Centre. The Centre had a large role in the acquisition of sponsors who make the project possible. Perhaps UBC could consider acquiring sponsors to fund a non-potable irrigation project or to supply facilities with upgraded compost, recycling stations. University of Colorado –Boulder Campus Source: 20. UC Boulder Poster for Recycling and Compost25University of Colorado – Boulder Campus Image Source: http-_www.colorado.edu_admissions_undergraduate_sites_default_files_location-front.jpgThe success of Ralphie’s Green Stampede has resulted in additional sustainable sports initiatives at the University of Colorado. The zero waste campaign was recently expanded to include the campus basket ball arena (Henly).In an interview with David Newport, director of the Campus Environmental Centre, he discussed the importance of finding a “cultural compatibility” between environmentalists and athletes. Finding common ground between seemingly dichotomous groups is important when getting effective sustainable campaigns off the ground.“Our goal is to use our ‘zero waste’ efforts and Sustainable Game-days brand platform to inspire fans to take bigger sustainability steps in their own lives. We recognize that sports is a uniquely powerful messenger for promoting sustainability...”-David Newport, director of the University of Colorado Environmental Centre. Qtd in Henly, Alice. CU- Boulder basketball Launches “Sustainable Gamedays” (2014) Web. 16 August 2014. Figure 21. University of Colorado Boulder Campus26University of BostonSummary of Sustainable Water Initiatives:-Piloting extreme low flow toilets and urinals-Rain water harvesting for sports field irrigation -Rain sensors installed on 140 irrigation systems -Self-charging, hands-free sink faucets The University of Boston has embarked on several campaigns to reduce their water con-sumption and create a more sustainable athletics department. These include rainwater harvest-ing for irrigation, the use of rain sensors on all irrigation systems and upgrades to washroom and locker room water fixtures. The University proudly advertises an 11% reduction in water consumption from the 2006 levels, along side a 14% increase in enrollment (What We’re Doing: Water).Figure 22. Water Usage University of BostonSource: Flow FixturesThe University of Boston is piloting extreme low flow fixtures, setting a new industry standard. The University has installed 5.6 Lpf/ 3Lpf dual flush toilets, compared to the 4.8 Lpf Water-Sense Standard. The campus is also using 0.9 Lpf urinals, using a litre less than the 1.9 Lpf Water Sense Standard (13, Sustainability Report 2013). As a University they are doing more than follow-ing the most efficient standards, they are setting them.27Rainwater / Sports Field Irrigation The University of Boston athletics department recently installed a 15,000 gallon (56781.2 Litre) rain water storage tank that is used to irrigate the new balance field hockey turf (Rainwater Harvesting at New Balance Field). The under ground cistern is expected to supply 80% of the grounds irrigation needs. The water storage tank also captures water used to wet the field hockey turf before practice and games. The area irrigat-ed by the reclaimed water also use drip irrigation reducing the water loss to evaporation. Figure 24. 15,000 gallon tank being installed at the New Balance Field on         The University of Boston Campus.Figure 23. Self Charging Sink by EcoPowerSource: http-_www.bu.edu_sustainability_files_2013_08_water-tank1.jpgSource: SinksThis innovative new technology utilizes a small internal turbine that turns, charging when water runs through it. These fixtures designed by Eco-Power, are another example of U Boston piloting a sustainable new innovation. University of Boston28Innovative Financing Ideas for Sustainable InitiativesThe following projects are not directly related to water conservation but rather present an example of a University funding a sustainable initiative in a unique way. Considering alternative methods of funding allowed these schools to realize projects outside of the typical athletics department budget. Arizona State University powers almost half of their operations using solar arrays. The athletics department employed a unique fee structure in order to finance the use of solar panels without investing a large amount of initial capital. The solar panels are managed by the university’s solar team, who operate with in the university’s facilities Development and Management department. The Solar Team contracted half of the panels from solar developers and the University owns the other half. (Henly, 45) The panel installation and maintenance also benefit from federal and state incentives, which further reduces any financial burden from the University (46).Although UBC’s Athletics department is not currently considering solar power on any facilities, the fee structure employed by Arizona State University could suggest an innovative way of financing sustainable initiatives without a high upfront cost. Perhaps cisterns for rainwater capture could be purchased by another department at UBC or sponsored by a private company.University of Arizona also employs an innovative financing structure to fund sustainable projects. The University charges all enrolled students a $24 “Green Fund,” which is used by a 10 student team to fund sustainable campaigns including greener sports events and research projects (59).Figure 25. Solar Canopy at the Softball Stadium at Arizona State University          Source: https-_asunews.asu.edu_files_0225-farrington-18-west_looking_east.jpg29Of the 10 Universities recognized for sustain-ability  initiatives in the “Collegiate Gamchang-ers,” report released by the National Resource Defense Council, 8 had active zero waste event and stadium campaigns. Although there are costs associated with purchasing recycling and compost stations, the high visibility of this type of campaign creates a sponsorship opportuni-ty that can generate income. The University of Colorado Athletics department in collabora-tion with the University Environmental Centre turned “Ralpie’s Green Stampede,” into a reve-nue generating event securing over $100,000 of annual sponsorship.A waste diversion program would greatly benefit UBC Athletics. A Zero waste campaign would align athletics with the sustainability mandate of UBC and several progressive North American colleges and Universities. The New Zero Waste StandardFigure 26. Zero Waste Campaign at the John Paul Jones Arena at the University of Virginia         Source: http-_news.virginia.edu_sites_default_files_zero_waste.jpg30Conclusion: Elements of a Sustainable Athletics CampaignSustainable Athletics Water Use: Best Practices StudyIn order to implement a successful sustainable athletics cam-paign, the Universities studied employed a variety of tactics and resources. The most successful programs engaged the student body, sports fans, and university employees. These campaigns like University of Colorado’s “Ralphie’s Green Stampede” have a strong visual presence which allows them to secure sponsorship and create a dialogue about sustainable practice among participants. To create a sustainable department, UBC requires a sustainabil-ity campaign that included students, athletes, sports fans and staff. Engaging all stakeholders starts a conversation about sus-tainability and meaningful change rather than simply plumbing upgrades or recycling stations. All participants need to contrib-ute to prevent counter productive backlash from students or staff.The athletics department has a lot to gain from interaction with other departments and campus resources. Continuing to work with SEEDS student researchers and the University Sustainabil-ity Initiative could help the athletics department achieve their sustainability goals. Having student interns investigate energy, waste or water consumption is an affordable way to make grad-ual sustainable upgrades. The energy and water saving upgrades resulting from student research should be publicized to encour-age further student involvement. The Athletics department should make their willingness to collaborate and interest in sustainability known to the campus. Perhaps the department could engage an Environmental Design class or engineering students to further explore energy retrofits for department facilities or reclaimed water re-use.Elements of a  Sustainable Athletics Campaign:1) Engage all participants (students, athletes, staff sports fans)2) Utilize all campus resources and potential interdepartmental collaboration3) Capitalize on sponsorship to realize costly upgrades4) Publicize successful upgrades and changes Hiring a full or part-time Athletics staff member to pursue sustainable oppurtunities and collaborations could also help the department to make a cohesive environmental campaign. Alternatively, the department could assign sustainability tasks to facility managers or develope a long term collaboration with the Campus Sustainability Initiave or the UBC Social, Ecological, Economic, Development Studies (SEEDS).31Sports Field Irrigation InvestigationThe following inves-tigation explores the feasibility of utilizing storm water and excess irrigation recapture to reduce the amount of potable water used for irrigation. The cost of a reclaimed water system is a major barrier in the implementation and was therefore con-sidered as the deciding factor in the feasibility of a new system.Figure 27. Imaging Water Reuse in UBC Athletics32Considering Wright FieldHarold Wright field is used primarily for field hockey. Artificial turf surfaces used for hock-ey must be irrigated to prevent injuries and regulate ball behavior. According to Athletics managerial staff, the turf surface has the highest water consumption of all of the fields in Thun-derbird park. The field is irrigated by water canons that shoot 100 gallons per minute for a 6 or 12 minute cy-cle. This wetting occurs between 5 and 10 times per day, 7 days per week during the summer. The field is also irrigated during the winter with less frequency. Using the assumption that  Van-couver receives at least 197 days of sun, along with an average field usage, it can be estimated that Wright Field consumes approximately  1 430 550 gallons or 5415 cubic meters of water annually (Vancouver Weather Stats).Much of the water used to wet the field before play simply runs through the field surface into the storm drainage bellow.  The research that follows explores the feasibility of capturing and reusing this water.Two properties adjacent to Wright Field are scheduled for renovations within the next two years creating an opportunity to construct an underground storm water and irrigation run-off storage system. Figure 28. Map of Thunderbird ParkHarold Wright FieldFields being renovated in 2015Image Source:,000 Gallon Capacity1500 Rain Tank Units198 ft29 ft3.7 ft3mm Imper veous linerGravel fillOverflow to wetlandsStorm WaterField hockey Irrigation ExcessIrrigation lineSeveral Collegiate athletics departments use reclaimed water systems that collect both storm water and excess irrigation from field hockey playing surfaces. The University of Boston and Longwood University in Farmville Virginia, both collect water from hockey fields and use it to irrigate surrounding landscaping or other sports fields. Longwood University Storm Water / Irrigation Collection ChambersFigure 29. Diagram of Reclaimed Water System used at Longwood University in Lancer Park                   compiled using information from: Goatley, Michael, James C. Puhalla, Jeffrey V. Krans Sports Fields: Design, Construction,            and Maintenance. N.J: Wiley , 2010.34These systems do not recycle water collected from the turf back onto the hockey surface. This may be because of concerns that the recycled tire  rubber infill mat common to most hockey turf surfaces are releasing toxins and could be concentrated by reusing the water without exten-sive filtration. Instead the systems at Boston and Longwood University collect water to irrigate other fields and nearby landscaping. Sized for the maximum amount of daily water capacity, Wright field would require a water retention chamber of approximately 12 000 gallons (45424.9 L). Using a triple module sold by Atlantis a chamber this size could be constructed by 194 modules with a capacity of 233.64 L at a cost of $83 per module. This would make the cost of the mod-ules approximately $16 102 before shipping and installation. Raintank Water Storage SystemImage source: http-_www.rainharvest.com_atlantis-d-raintank-.jpgFigure 30. Diagram of the Raintank System From the Supplier35Rain Tank modules and similar strategies for Storm Water RetentionSeveral modular system for storm water storage are available. These systems are made from recycled polypropylene and designed to the size required by each specific project. The modules are sold as a struc-tural load bearing product that can support traffic or parking or a non load bearing version which supports pedestrian traffic.Figure 31. Single  Matrix One Module          Source: http-_www.layfieldenvironmental.com_Content_Files_Imag           es_Product_MatrixOne3Figure 32. Installation of Rain Tank Modules          Source: http-_www.kanapipeline.com_images_Rain-Tank-Figure 33. Various configurations of Aqua Blox Modules          Source: http-_www.rainxchange.com_products_images_aquablox.gif36 Storm Water Retention Chambers - Structural Core BundlesStorm water retention chambers made from structural core bundles of recycled food grade high density polyethylene can be constructed to store large quantities of water. These systems are sold by Rain Technologies for approximately $6.5 US ($7.06 CAD) per cubic foot of water storage space. This figure includes a filter system, impermeable liner, structural core, sump connections and input and output con-nections. For a 12 000 gallon water storage space this would cost approximately $10 426 US or $11 328 CAD (calculated at the August 25 2014 exchange rate).If considering the waste-water costs associated with water exiting Wright Field and the cost to irrigate an adjacent field at the peak water rate, this system could pay for itself after approxi-mately 69 days. This figure assumes a 12 000 gallon (1604 cu.ft.) water storage space, and 19,000 gallons per day to irrigate a sports field the size of Varsity. This figure does not include installation costs. Figure 34. Installation of Storm Water Retention Chamber.           Source: Reclaimed Water System for Wright Field According to the “UBC Wright Field Remedi-ation Plan,” Wright Field drains to a 200mm storm drain on the south east side of the turf. The fields being renovated in 2015 are on the south and east side of Wright Field creating an opportunity to embed a water collection tank or chamber in to the fields being renovated. The reclaimed water system would require pip-ing from the storm drain, a collection chamber, and a filtration unit before the water could be used to irrigate the adjacent fields. Because of regulations from the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority on the spraying of reclaimed water, the water would need to be filtered to the level of being potable.  The “Reclaimed Water Guide” published by the B.C. Ministry of Environment details the specif-ics of irrigating with reclaimed water. According to the guide, water collected from Wright Field could only be used for irrigation between 10PM and 6AM, because of the exposure of students and the public to reclaimed water (28).Water Filtration specialists, Watertiger and Corix Water System provided quotes for a reclaimed water system for Wright Field. Both companies are based in greater Vancouver. Watertiger provided the estimate that the filtra-tion system would cost $ 19,000 plus the cost of a pump which would be between $4000 and $7000. This quote does not include installation or excavation. Corix Water Systems provided the estimate that the system would cost $198,000 including installation, excavation and start-up. Field hockey Irrigation Storm DrainWater Collection Chamber FiltrationPump StationrecirculationWright FieldFigure 35. Schematic of Reclaimed Water System for Wright Field38 Reclaimed Water System for Wright Field The Athletics department could avoid treating the reclaimed water col-lected from Wright field to a potable level by utilizing it in a subsurface dripline irrigation system. Subsurface driplines are gaining popularity for sports field irrigation becuase of the increased water efficiency and absence of sprinkler heads to be damaged by or injure athletes (Goatley, 108). The largest draw back to these systems is the high initial installation cost as the dripline must be drenched approximately 6 inches into the field. This part of the installation cost could be avoided if the system is installed when the turf is replaced with grass on Varsity field in the up-coming athletic season.Southern Drip Irrigation based in Chiliwack and Wes-Tech Irrigation based in Victoria supplied quotes for a sub-surface irrigation system. Southern Irrigation estimated that the design, materials and installation would cost $81,000 (the installation cost has been factored to remove trenching and burrying the dripline). Considering the savings to sew-age charges from reusing waste water from Wright Field and the cost to irrigate Varsity Field with a spray system at peak meter rates, this system could pay for itself in 1.35 years. This figure assumes peak water rates and maximum useage , therefore the system would realistically pay for itself after two summers. The subsurface drip system would also need to be combined with a water storage system like the water space retention chambers discussed on page 36, adding another 69 days to the pay back period.Wes-Tech Irrigation provided the estimate that the whole system would cost $77 364.70. This quote includes a reclaimed water storage space, sub-surface irrigation dripline, filtration, pump, irrigation controller and GST. The quote did not include the cost of installation, which the company could not provide. This system would pay for itself in approximately 1.29 years or two summer seasons.Figure 36. Illustration of Subsurface Drip Irrigation System         Source:  39LEED Points for  Reclaimed Water StrategiesWater Efficiency CreditsWE Credit 1Water Efficient Landscaping(2 Points)WE Credit 2Innovative Wastewater Technologies(2 Points)WE Credit 3Water Use Reduction(2-4 Points)Innovation & Design CreditsID Credit 1Innovation & Design(1-5 Points)Sustainable Sites CreditsSS Credit 6.1Storm water Design: Quantity Control(1 Point)SS Credit 6.2Storm water Design: Quality Control(1 Point)SS Credit 7.1Heat Island Effect: Non-roof(1 Point)Materials & Resources CreditsMR Credit 3Materials Reuse(1-2 Points)5% = 1 Point; 10% = 2 PointsMR Credit 4Recycled Content(1-2 Points)10% = 1 Point; 20% = 2 PointsStorm water storage chambers and reclaimed water systems can con-tribute to LEED credits for new construction. It is possible that the athletics department could link a sub-surface dripline system and reclaimed water system to the new construction of the National Soccer Development Centre which may be located south of Varsity field. (Penny Martyn). The recycled content and water effi-ciency inherent in these systems  al-lows Storm water retention chambers to add up to 20 points to a project, helping a project achieve a higher LEED standard. 40Sports Field Irrigation Investigation ConclusionThe need to filter reclaimed water to a potable level or employ a subsurface irrigation system  to utilize water reclaimed from Wright field, make the project less financially feasible than origi-nally anticipated. A reclaimed water irrigation system would be more feasible if external spon-sorship or support from UBC was employed. Although the payback periods discussed on page 38 for the subsurface irrigation system seem reasonable, it is recommended that the depart-ment consult with a local landscape design firm to confirm the costs and returns of a project of this scale.41BibliographyAtlantis D-Raintank Modular Rainwater Storage Systems. Rain Harvest Systems. (2014) Web. August 2014.Baltazar, Gemma. “Toxic Turf?; More Popular Than Ever, Fake Grass May Not Be So Safe.” In These Times Vol. 33 No. 12. PDF file. 12 July 2014. Barrios, Andrea. Student Recreation Centre Facility Manager. Personal Interview. 25 June 2014.Blackheart, Elizabeth. The Ditch Project. “History: How Does CU Boulder Use Ditch Water.” Web. 29 July 2014.Bruce, Jennifier. “Athletics Ability To Conserve: Investigating A University Athletic Facility’s Water Consumption.” PDF file. 2013.Canada Green Building Council. “LEED Canada for New Construction and Major Renovations 2009.” PDF file. 7 August 2014.CU-Boulder on Sustainability and Green Campus Issues. University of Colorado Boulder. (2012). Web. 13 July 2014.Doyle, Doug. Associate Director, Infrastructure and Services Planning. Personal Interview. 7 August 2014.Goatley, Michael, James C. Puhalla, Jeffrey V. Krans. Sports Fields: Design, Construction, and Maintenance. N.J: Wiley , 2010.“Guide To Irrigation System Design With Reclaimed Water.” (2001) PDF file. 10 August 2014.Henly, Alice. “Collegiate Game Changers: How Campus Sport is Going Green” July 2014. PDF file.Henly, Alice. CU- Boulder basketball Launches “Sustainable Gamedays” (2014) Web. 16 August 2014.Heiland Ryan. Assistant Manager Outdoor Services, University of Colorado. Personal Interview. 17 July 2014Heiland, Ryan. “Turfguard Sensors.” CU Outdoor Services. (2012) Web. 25 July 2014.Kastner, Erin. Geospatial Information Manager. Personal Interview. 15 July, 19 August 2014.Jacova, Ruben. War Memorial Gym Employee. Personal Interview. 2 July 2014.Martyn, Penny. Green Building Manager Campus & Community Planning/ Campus Sustainability. Personal Interview. 7 August 2014.Newport, David. Director, University of Colorado Environmental Centre. Personal Interview. 16 July 2014.Number of Days with Precipitation over the Last Year (monthly data) for Vancouver. Vancouver Weather Stats. (2014) Web. 22 August 2014Number of Days with Precipitation over the Last 25 Years (annual data) for Vancouver. Vancouver Weather Stats. (2014) Web. 22 August 2014Penny, Janelle. “Water Audits: Beyond the Basics.” Building (2013) 22. PDF file. 14 August 2014.42“Rainwater Harvesting at New Balance Field.”  Boston University Sustainability. Web. 16 July 2014.RainSpace Stormwater Management Chambers. Rain Technologies. Web. 3 August 2014.Ralphie’s Green Stampede Zero Waste Fact sheet. Colorado Football. Web. 13 July 2014.“Reclaimed Water Guideline: A Companion Document to the Municipal Wastewater Regulation Made Under the Environmental Management Act.”   (July 2013) PDF file. 8 August 2014.The Green Office. Sustainability@BU. Web. 24 July 2014.The Water Sense Label. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Web. 28 June 2014.Thomas, Bradley. Facility Manager, Thunderbird Stadium. Personal Interview. 25 June, 8 July, 19 August 2014.“UBC Vancouver Campus Water Conservation Action Plan.” (April 2012) PDF file. 5 July 2014.“UBC Technical Guidelines 2014 Division 15” (2014) PDF file. 71-73. 8 July 2014.“U-Boston Sustainability Report 2013.” (2013) PDF file. 2 July 2014.“Water Efficiency and Self-Conducted Water Audits at Commercial and Institutional Facilities: A Guide for Facility Managers.” (2013). PDF file. 10   August 2014.Water Management, Inc.,Western Policy Research, Koeller and Company. “Assessment of  Water Savings for Commercial Clothes Washers.” (2006)   PDF file. 21 August 2014.Water Management. Longwood University. (2014) Web. 3 August 2014.What We’re Doing: Water. Sustainability@BU. Web. 24 July 2014.Bibliography


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items